Zoophilia

[Serkat]

Hello, animals do not consent to being played with, getting slaughtered, being used to test medication, living in cages laying eggs for us or being repeatedly artificially inseminated so as to produce milk for us without ever seeing their children. Yet it seems that once the topic changes to sexual intercourse between human and animal, the animal rises to the position of a dignified, almost human-like creature which shall only be touched after having given its consent, which it obviously can't. So it is now considered animal abuse to have sex with animals. Yet we have to note that many animals, such as dogs, cats, horses, mules, donkeys and pigs are clearly able to defend themselves in the case of them feeling they are being treated in a dangerous way. It is certainly possible to combine animal abuse and animal sexuality. Yet, if we do not use weapons or physical restriction to initiate sexual contact with the animal, the element of abuse vanishes. Please explain your view on this. I would like you to not refer to your aesthetic liking of the concept of zoophilia, as clearly ones personal tastes and preferences are no valid guideline for the ethical judgment of persons who feel different than you do. I am now tending to think that bestiality should be legal and those who engage in it should be subject to psychiatric treatment. The display of fecal matter in combination with sexual activity is not appealing to most, yet this is allowed here in Germany. Why not bestiality?